Bush-Bashing: The Rules of Engagement
It is frustrating but true that whenever the US is considering aggressive action, the people in favor of it are always assumed to represent the “patriotic” position and those against are somehow “anti-American.” If progressives hope to make any headway against the Administration on the war or any important domestic issues, they need to find a way around this critical communications problem. There is a strong, legitimate case to be made that it is Bush and his cronies who are doing lasting harm to the principles and interests of America, but it will be difficult to make it as long as critics are open to the charge that they lack commitment to fundamental American values or are unwilling to make hard decisions about the use of American power.
Some elements of the left have only themselves to blame for this situation. After the country was attacked on 9/11, Bush and company benefited from the “rally-round-the-flag” effect, and, for the most part, his actions and utterances in the two or three months immediately following the attack merited support, or at least discrete silence. Opponents who spoke out against operations in Afghanistan – an American effort that was not only completely justified but also a critical first step in restoring security against future attacks – made a grave error in misjudging both the emotional intensity of the situation and the capabilities of the American military. By being spectacularly wrong in their first step out of the gate, they pre-emptively discredited future criticism they might offer, not only because they demonstrated that their ideological framework is out of step with majority sentiment, but because their dire predictions failed to come true. As a result, the rest of us have some work to do to restore the credibility of opposition and remove the taint of “anti-Americanism” from the legitimate enterprise of lambasting the Bush crew for their ill-conceived, hateful and incompetent policies.
People are of course entitled to hold any opinions they wish about the nature of the problems facing us and the best solutions to them. But if the practical goal is to dislodge Bush and company from power, you have to be at least within shouting distance of the values and beliefs shared by most Americans, so that they will trust that you have their interests at heart. Otherwise, they will tune out and even legitimate points will not get through. In my view, there are three key propositions that ground responsible debate on war and peace:
- Islamo-fascist terrorism and ideology are in fundamental opposition to the survival of all free and enlightened people, and efforts to fight them are inseparable from American values and interests. Romanticizing the “struggle” of the terrorists or claiming they have legitimate motives or grievances are prima faci evidence of bad faith in this case and will get nowhere.
- The goal is to protect civilians – American and otherwise – from random attack. When dealing with a violent and fanatical foe, one must accept that sometimes force – even pre-emptive force – may be required to achieve that goal. Those suspected of knee-jerk pacifism lack credibility in the face of the grave and genuine physical danger we are facing.
- Every national government exists to protect the social, political and financial interests of its citizens and its institutions. The US need not be ashamed of using its influence to forward its economic prosperity, its cultural values or its geopolitical concerns. This isn’t imperialism – it’s reality. Every other country in the world plays by these rules and would act in the same way (or worse) if they had the same position in the world as America enjoys today. That is not to say we should be utterly unprincipled in pursuit of our interests, or that our interests are exclusively short-term, but criticizing America simply for having or asserting economic or geopolitical concerns is not a productive or realistic approach.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who have principled and well-reasoned objections to any or all of these propositions, and they are welcome to them. However, I hope that people across the political spectrum can agree that anyone who holds those three points to be basically true is intellectually honest and qualified to offer a credible opinion on the current situation (e.g., not one that is “Anti-American”), even if it is not in agreement with the Administration.
Within these ground rules, it is possible to question Bush’s judgment and criticize his policies because they are counterproductive to the goals that most Americans share. Zealots will always try to brand those who disagree with them as traitors. The patriotic left needs to take that weapon out of their hands and marginalize them for their extreme and out-of-the-mainstream views. Bush is the biggest threat to American values and American interests we’ve seen since Joe McCarthy, and it will take the same tactics to defeat him.
And meanwhile, if you want to talk about treason, consider this. On September 12, 2001, there was one commercial airline flight authorized to leave US airspace. It was a plane containing the relatives of Osama Bin Laden, then as now assumed to be the mastermind behind the WTC attack. Perhaps they were innocent and knew nothing about their estranged kinsman. But considering the hundreds of thousands of Arab-Americans and foreign nationals suspected, observed, detained, questioned and in some cases imprisoned without recourse to legal protections in the months since then, might it not perhaps have been prudent to at least question the man’s direct relatives before packing them off first-class back to Saudi Arabia? What if one of them knew something of his whereabouts, or could provide information to stop a future attack? What possible explanation consistent with a war on terrorism could be offered to defend this action? Could one not perhaps suggest that whoever signed this ill-advised order might themselves be guilty of treason in the very specific sense of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States? Let’s talk about that, maybe around October, 2004.
10:00:35 AM 
|
|
